I have mixed feelings about this week’s book. I guess it’s an interesting concept and all, but honestly I felt disappointed with the storyline overall. At the beginning, it’s clear that Saramago is having some fun imagining a country’s reaction to the sudden absence of death, describing in depth the various governmental and societal changes that come about in its wake. This part of the novel is largely satirical- Saramago’s invention of the maphia (spelled with a ph instead of an f), responsible for the illicit transport of bodies over the border so they can die, is just one example of this parody of a country he creates. Also worth mentioning is the entire funeral industry having to switch to burying pets, given the shortage of human bodies. I particularly liked his portrayal of the “constitutional monarch” of the novel, the king, who is always the last to know what’s going on his own country and completely at the mercy of the prime minister. I actually laughed out loud on page 91, when the king is asking for reassurance that there won’t be a revolution sparked by the republicans, and simply crosses out the word “republicans” in his diary after the prime minister’s dismissal of the problem. This is a monarch operating at a very high intellectual level.

I think my main gripe with this novel is that it’s asking us to think too much about death, and life for that matter. About what would happen if death threw in the towel for a bit, if she were a real person with feelings just like us. She does seem like an average human being in many ways. She’s unhappy with her life (if we can call it that), constantly changing her mind about things, and seems to question her identity and purpose quite frequently. And then, of course, death meets her match, so to speak- someone who will not die, at least not by her command. Of course, this seemingly average man becomes a love interest, and death takes a chance on living an actual human life. It kind of feels like, after all this, Saramago is saying something corny like “love overrides death” or some other cliché idea. And while I’m sure he had his own intentions while writing, I’m just not sure what those were, or what he’s trying to say exactly with this story. Sure, it makes you think, but it’s all very surface level, and is really only asking the same question over and over.

I guess I’m trying to say that it feels a little gimmicky after a while, for lack of a more sophisticated word. I could see this same idea being used in a tacky YA novel; a beach read if you will. Forgive me if that sounds pretentious- I just expected a little more from a Nobel prize winner, that’s all. All in all, this novel just didn’t really have the same affective impact for me as many of the other books this semester have. I found myself hoping for more than just entertainment value, but ended up coming up short.

My question- did you find yourself especially moved by any parts of the novel and if so, why?